Reflections on Chapter 1 of The New Christians by Tony Jones

Just read the first chapter of Tony Jones’ new book, The New Christians. I don’t have the book. The chapter I read was free on the internet. I requested a copy from Tony to review on Missional Methodist Movement website, but as of now, I haven’t received it. I mention that because I want to be fair and also I have no idea where he is heading after the first chapter.

I thought Tony had a lot of good insights into the current issues with the church, religion and spirituality. I find myself leaning more toward missional and/or the emergent side of things, so I will probably agree with much of what Tony has in his book. However, there is one area that I think needs to be explored more in the emergent and missional movements. That are is the area of holiness.

It has taken me about 20 years to come to terms with holiness. I am a UMC pastor and the father of our denomination is John Wesley who had a lot to say about holiness. For a long time I ignored what he had to say and I don’t think I am alone in that. I ignored it because holiness always seemed like it was based on rules and regulations and I certainly didn’t want to follow the path that other holiness movement folks did.

Tony Jone, while discussing some of the problems facing churches writes:

The evidence is in: millions of individuals ‘‘inviting Jesus Christ into their hearts as their personal Lord and Savior’’ at megachurches and Billy Graham crusades has done little to stem the moral dissolution of America. And ironically,it’s the very individualism engendered by evangelicalism that has resulted inthis predicament. The primary emphasis of evangelicalism is the conversion of the individual, but that emphasis has also handicapped evangelicals in their attempts to tackle systemic issues like racism and poverty and thus has left themopen to manipulation by political forces.

Tony’s point is well taken. The church is very individualistic (which I hate, but struggle to break away from). It also has seemed to be pretty inept in the way of social change. But, is that because of the emphasis on individual conversion?

Later he writes:

The church that doesn’tchallenge its members to face the core ethical issues that confront themevery day at work is the church that has abdicated its responsibility. Many churches, particularly evangelical ones, make this mistake, and here’s why:too many evangelical churches have emphasized the vertical, just-me-and-Jesus relationship to the exclusion of the horizontal relationships with other human beings and with all of creation.In fact, a major study in the 1990s showed that the individualism inherent in American evangelicalism is directly responsible for evangelicals’ inability to diagnose and solve systemic social issues like racism and abortion. In other words, the formula for evangelical growth—namely,individual conversion—also precludes many evangelical churches from affecting the very changes that rally its members. So when I asked about the chickens,it was a theological non sequitur to the middle managers; as long as their relationship with Jesus was all right, everything else would take care of itself.

You will have to read the chapter to see why he asks about the chickens.

I agree with Tony on the problem, but I don’t think it is because of the focus on conversion. I believe the issue is we have separated justification from regeneration…which John Wesley wouldn’t do. Basically if your sins were forgiven, God’s power also came in and created, in you, a new creation. Wesley’s expectation from those who were forgiven from their sins were they would also be saved from the power of their sins.

Holiness, for Wesley, was the standard way of life for a Christian, however, while we have kept the focus on forgiveness, we have neglected holiness. It is holiness that is missing today and holiness would transform the Church. We already have an example of what a focus on conversion and holiness brings….just look at the Wesleyan revivals under the Wesleys. They literally transformed life in England. Not just the spiritual life, but also the social life. [edit: If we receive the mind of Christ as Wesley contends, then it makes sense that our agendas would reflect the will of God. This results in the outward focus of, as N. T. Wright says, "putting things back to rights." ]

I was planning on writing some more about holiness (which I still plan on doing), but I thought it was interesting that Jone’s doesn’t seem even to bring it up…instead he seems to imply that we can address these social issues in some other way. Again, I lean toward the emergent/missional way. I believe emergent/missional is the best way to live out the life of the Gospel in our current culture, so I interested to read what else Jones has to say.

Why Emergent?

There was an excellent blog entry at TheBlogBlog. The term Emergent and Postmodern is getting thrown around quit a bit these days. The post I’m quoting from basically reflects my feelings on the issue. For me, the biggest change, in my understanding, has been moving more to a missional arena. I’m not there yet, but I am in transition. When I was studying to become a pastor (In the last 1988-1992), I had no idea that one day I might see myself more as a missionary to the culture around me than a pastor, but, that change is happening. I believe the who Emergent movement is trying to deal with the issues surrounding such a transition. Perhaps when I have time I’ll go into more detail on where I’m at in relationship to all this and include links as to why. Here’s a quote from the blog entry:

When the organization started as Young Leaders in 1996, they, like everyone else, were talking about generational ministries, connecting to Gen X, looking for techniques to reach out and become relevant. At their conference in 1997, there was a bit of disquiet, as some of the younger leaders felt that much more than a generational change was at play, and some began to use the postmodern word for the first time. By 1998, the third YLN conference put generational strategies to the back-burner and really began to look at culture and mission. This was the first conference planned by Doug Pagitt, and was the first conference attended by Brian McLaren and Tony Jones. By 1999, their name changed to Terra Nova Theological Project reflecting their change from technique modification to something entirely new. Two years later, Brian McLaren’s New Kind of Christian reflected this new understanding of postmodern culture that was developing in the movement.

 

At this time also there was a budding sense that cultural changes required new theologies. At the same time, NT Wright and Dallas Willard’s influence grew — not only was there a new culture, but a new understanding of gospel, kingdom, and atonement emerged. It was at that time that it dawned upon the leaders that a whole new theology needed to be developed, i.e. a new message as well as a new method was required. Terra Nova Theological Project became Emergent at that time.

 

 

[TheBolgBlog]

The Move to Emergent

Last night I had the privilege of having dinner with a few friends. One of the couples is moving 1000 miles to minister to artists. They are artists, but for the past few years they have been Pastors of worship and arts at a mid-size church (700-900). What struck me was how comfortable they seemed with ‘emergent’ issues, even though they really haven’t studied or moved into the ‘emergent’ scene too much.

I told a different friend that I believe the Spirit of God moves and is moving. The question is whether we are open to hear it. My worship pastor friend definitely is. He is moving and doesn’t yet have a job or a place to live. He is leaving, because he heard the Spirit of God say “go.” As I struggle with the current issues within the church, I realize as we follow the Spirit of God, our lives will look different than those who don’t. I don’t want to be too judgmental here, but I will say it anyway, I wonder, in the traditional church, how much we have either stopped listening to God’s Spirit. Perhaps it isn’t that we have stopped listening, perhaps it is more of an unwillingness to allow our lives to be made uncomfortable or messy. After all, the church hasn’t done very well with the messy and we sure love to be comfortable. As I think along these lines, an Old Testament story comes to mind. What I wonder is how many of us are bowing down when the music plays, to what are we bowing down, and what penalty does standing involve?

Missional Opportunity

I wonder how other people feel about doing "good works" but not "stamping" Jesus all over what we do. I’ve had some conversations with people at my church and many feel it is giving God glory to let people know the reason why we are doing what we are doing is because of what Jesus has done.

After a recent short term mission trip to Thailand to help with tsunami relief on Koh Phi Phi Don Island, I asked myself is there another way to do missions in an emergent context. What I came up with was Flash Mob Missions. There are already several agencies doing work on this island, what they need is people to come and be hands. These agencies are not "Christian" per say, but they are doing the work of the church even if they don’t know it. So I figured why create another organization, with a Christian banner, just to justify the work? So what I have done is created a website with all the details on how to go and serve the people of that Island. Wouldn’t it be a great representation of the church if a couple of hundred Christians from all over just showed up on the island to help? No fan fare, no press, and not "We need to stamp Jesus all over what we do."

[open source theology - collaborative theology for the emerging church]

Label: Christian

What if Christians stopped seeing themselves as Christian? What if the label Christian lost its significance? What would happen if instead of answering the question, “Are you a Christian” affirmatively, we stepped back and found some other way to define who we are? We are in a mass marketed, mass communication, mass information Culture where labels have been defined. The label “Christian” has a lot of baggage. Not all of the baggage is bad, but to many in our culture the label Christian means certain negative things. Some are trying to cast off the old label for a new focus on Jesus. It was difficult for Coke to introduce “new” Coke. Perhaps we are having the same issue with a new flavor of “Christianity.” A flavor that is not focused on dogmas or what one believes, but rather if one is integrating the teachings of Jesus into one’s life. It will be difficult for the church to discard the label Christian however. Not that “Christian” is bad, just the way the label has been defined. Many in our culture turn away when the label Christian is used. It has to much bad baggage. Instead of Christian, perhaps we should focus on Spirituality with Jesus as the central figure. There are times when I’m not sure that Jesus is the central figure of the label Christianity. Jesus says feed the hungry, which I don’t do too well. He said clothe the naked, which I don’t do too well. He said to love your enemy…again…I don’t do too well. The problem is, I’m not alone in those who claim the label Christian. When I claim the label Christian, I can feel good about myself. When I claim my spirituality is based on the person Jesus, then I don’t feel as good about myself because I don’t actively integrate His life and teachings into my life. I still claim the label, yet now I struggle with the distance between what my life is and what Jesus teachings say. Progress is slow, but there is progress. My question is, how can we get more “Christians” to integrate Jesus?

Emergent Village – WWJ…Be? I never really got…

Emergent Village – WWJ…Be?

I never really got into the whole “WWJD” craze. Deep down, I felt that something was missing. I believe Javad Shadzi hits the mark. I remember in seminary being introduced to “being vs doing.” I was squarly in the doing camp.

It is so easy, to forget that God wants to change us from the inside out. Jesus’ message to the religious leaders is the same as to us, “You clean the outside of the cup….but the inside of the cup is filthy.”

It isn’t that I think that WWJD is bad…I don’t. We should always be trying to do the work that Jesus did and respond the way he did. However, there is a much bigger issue. If we are to truly do what Jesus did…we must allow him to change us from the inside out.

Mr Shadzi was right on when he points out that Jesus did what he did not because he was “trying” to do things a certain way. Rather, he did what he did because it was who he was. If my goal is to do what Jesus did, I’m missing the power and transformation of the Gospel. If my Goal is to _be_ like Jesus, the what I do flows from who I am.

The difference between doing and being is vast. There is an ocean of difference. When I try to “do” what Jesus did, sometimes I hit the mark, sometimes I don’t. However (and here is the danger) sometimes when I do hit the mark (by doing what Jesus did) I, in reality, miss the mark (because it was only a facade anyway).

When I try to _be_ like Jesus (or ask myself, what (or who) would Jesus Be?), then my actions flow from my being. My actions are determined by my being. When that happens, I am freed…freed from the prison of forcing myself to do things that really aren’t part of my being.

The wonderful thing about God is he longs to touch us in such a way that we are transformed into the image of his Son. When we allow God to do such a transformation within us, we are finally, truly able to do what Jesus did.

- Dave.